Facial width-to-height ratio
Facial width-to-height ratio — cheekbone width versus the height of the upper face.
Why it matters
fWHR is linked to perceptions of dominance and aggression; lower values read softer and less threatening.
What facial width-to-height ratio is
Facial width-to-height ratio, usually written fWHR, compares how wide your face is across the cheekbones to how tall the upper portion of the face is. The width is the bizygomatic distance - cheekbone to cheekbone - and the height runs from the highest point of the eyelids down to the upper lip. Dividing the width by the height gives a single number that describes whether the upper face is broad and short or narrow and tall.
The measure was popularised by Carre & McCormick 2008, who studied it in the context of behaviour rather than beauty. It captures the proportions of the mid and upper face specifically, which is why it is read at eyelid-to-lip height rather than over the whole head.
Why it carries social meaning
fWHR is one of the more heavily researched facial proportions, but its associations are about perceived dominance and aggression rather than attractiveness as such. A face that is wider for its height tends to read as more dominant or assertive; a lower ratio reads softer and less threatening. These are perceptual impressions, not statements about a person's character.
It is worth being clear about the origins of this metric. As Weston et al. 2007 discussed, fWHR has been examined through the lens of sexual selection and the shape of the hominin face, and the dominance link is its better-supported reading. Treating a value here as a beauty score would be reading more into it than the evidence supports.
The typical range and its caveats
The band used here is roughly 1.85 to 2.08, which sits a little below this tool's measured median of about 2.13 - meaning a slightly lower, less-wide ratio is what leaned favourable in the app's rated faces.
Two honesty notes apply. First, the original purpose of fWHR was to index dominance, not attractiveness, so a 'good' score here is really a 'reads softer' score rather than a verdict on beauty. Second, whether fWHR differs reliably between men and women is contested in the literature, which is why a single band is used here instead of separate male and female targets.
Reading your number and what moves it
Because the height portion is measured from the eyelids to the upper lip, expression and eyelid openness shift the number a little - a wide-eyed or squinting photo will not read the same as a relaxed one. The width, by contrast, is mostly skeletal and stable. For a fair reading, use a relaxed, front-on photo at eye level.
The realistic levers are limited. Lower facial body fat and contouring make-up reduce apparent cheek width and can lower how the ratio reads. The bizygomatic width itself is bone and does not change with grooming. Cheek or jaw surgery can alter facial width, but it is a major step noted here only as fact, not as advice - and remember the metric was never designed as a beauty target in the first place.
Typical range
~1.85-2.08 (lower / less-wide reads better)
Cheekbone (bizygomatic) width divided by upper-face height, from the highest eyelid point to the upper lip (Carre & McCormick 2008). Studied in relation to dominance/aggression.
What your reading means
- Typical
- Your width-to-height ratio sits in a balanced range.
- Less common
- Your fWHR is slightly high or low.
- Distinctive
- Your face reads relatively wide (higher dominance cue) or narrow for its height.
How we measured it
We divide your cheekbone (bizygomatic) width by the upper-face height (eyelids to upper lip).
The evidence
Originally a dominance measure, not beauty (Weston 2007); but in our rated faces a LOWER fWHR tracked higher attractiveness, so the band leans below the mesh median (~2.13). Sexual dimorphism is contested, so a single band is kept.
References
- Carre, J. M., & McCormick, C. M. (2008). In your face: facial metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 275(1651), 2651-2656.
- Weston, E. M., Friday, A. E., & Lio, P. (2007). Biometric evidence that sexual selection has shaped the hominin face. PLOS ONE, 2(8), e710.